The alternative gnostic (marcionite) not-danielic interpretation of Son of Man

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The alternative gnostic (marcionite) not-danielic interpretation of Son of Man

Post by Giuseppe »

In past I had expressed doubts about the presence of Son of Man in Marcion, so much the term (meant as derived from Daniel) seemed the further judaizing title to make Jesus more "Jewish" against the Gnostics and so against Marcion, too.

But now I see that there is in evidence a different and especially not-danielic interpretation of Son of Man that probably was used by Marcion (before the Judaizers's use of the term?).

So Jean Magne:

These same words "Let us make man in our images, according to our likeness" (Gen 1.26) no longer pose problems for the creator but for man. The text clearly expresses the creator's intention to make man in his own image, but the gnostic obviously wants to avoid this unflattering resemblance with Sophia's abortion, and furthermore contrary to his belief that the spiritual part of man emanates from the supreme god, that it preexisted in the world above to which it will return, and was imprisoned in a material body by the creator. Man wants to resemble the supreme god not only spiritually but physically as well, since the creator fashioned his body "in the image of God" as the words assert "So god (the creator) created man in his image; in the image of God (the supreme god) he created him" (Gen 1.27). If man is in the image of God, then God is the model of man, in other words, God is Perfect Man, Anthropos in Greek. But since the supreme god is by definition invisible, what must be explained is how the archons knew this model in order to copy it by moulding a body out of mud. An intemediary is devised, "the (visible) image of the invisible God", as the author of Colossians 1.15 wrote. He will be the Son of Man, Second Adam, a direct model for Third Adam, earthly man. The archons would have glimpsed his image reflected in the primordial waters. Other writers, even some of the Early Fathers, would believe that God possesses a spiritual body, and later Jewish mysticism will exert itself to estimating its fantastic dimensions (Shuir qoma).

(From Gnosis to Christianity, p. 63-64, my bold)

Daniel is completely absent in this interpretation, as it is perfectly expected if who introduced the term was a Gnostic (Marcion as author of the Earliest Gospel?)..
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply